Posted
by
BeauHDon Monday December 04, 2017 @07:45PM
from the tom-foolery dept.

WheezyJoe writes: A pay-per-view UFC Match was streamed in its entirety on Twitch and other platforms by a gamer pretending he was "playing" the fight as a game. The gamer, AJ Lester, appearing in the corner of the image holding his game controller, made off like he was controlling the action of the "game" when in fact he was re-broadcasting the fight for free. A tweet showing Lester's antics went viral with over 63,000 retweets and 140,000 likes at the time of publication. Another clip shows him reacting wildly yelling "oooooooooooooooh!!!" and "damnnnnnn!" in response to the match.

CGI is almost photo realistic these days, you would think at some point using motion detect, facial recognition body mechanic modelling etc any sports event would be able to be rendered in game in near real time so defeats the point of paying to see it.
We live in interesting times...

You know why "hacking" in movies is unrealistic? Because the reality is FUCKING BORING to watch. Even if you know what the person is doing, it's by no means a spectator sport. Twice so if you have no idea what's going on.

You know why "hacking" in movies is unrealistic? Because the reality is FUCKING BORING to watch. Even if you know what the person is doing, it's by no means a spectator sport. Twice so if you have no idea what's going on.

Would you watch a stream of programmers typing on their keyboards? No, because it's pointless.

Yes, I have watched programming streams. No, it is not pointless - it sometimes shows me things hat I didn't think of or know about previously.I don't watch it as a sport. I can easily envision a market for it however.It may not be appealing to you. That said, you are an individual, and there are many more people out in the world whose taste differs from yours.

Entertainment options such as movies are handicapped from the outset by predetermined outcomes. "Humans watch other humans playing sports" do so, because it's one of the the few things you can watch in which the outcome has yet to be determined.

"Oh, "for the teams", you say? That's tribalism, meaning you have the same brain processes as cavemen."

We are the descendants of a long line of tribal people, fighting the instinct to team up or die. For a factual, current example, consider political alignment.

Would you watch a stream of programmers typing on their keyboards? No, because it's pointless.

Humans watch other humans playing sports because they're too fucking lazy to play sports themselves.

I think you missed the point. Lord of the Rings was mostly programmers typing on keyboards, but that is not the end product that people paid to see.

Oh, "for the teams", you say? That's tribalism, meaning you have the same brain processes as cavemen.

Exactly, so what is the difference between watching a real human on TV, and a computer generated photo-realistic human on TV when your brain can't tell the difference? Sure we're not quite there yet, but it's only a couple of years away

Our brains still work for groups of 5 to 10 individuals. Not more. You will NEVER have any kind of strong "feelings" for anyone outside that 5 to 10 people group. Whether it's work or your private life, yes, you might work for a large corporation with thousands of people, but the only ones you really care about are the maybe 5 or 10 people in your immediate organization group.

That is, by the way, the very reason these groups are organized that way. Because that's the size of groups that we can handle instin

Our brains still work for groups of 5 to 10 individuals. Not more. You will NEVER have any kind of strong "feelings" for anyone outside that 5 to 10 people group. Whether it's work or your private life, yes, you might work for a large corporation with thousands of people, but the only ones you really care about are the maybe 5 or 10 people in your immediate organization group.

That is, by the way, the very reason these groups are organized that way. Because that's the size of groups that we can handle instinctively.

And here I thought it was because managers couldn't stand writing more than 10 performance reviews.

They do the live stream commentary to get around that at times (as riff tracks live), but the theatre still needs the rights to play the original thing they live comment over (and to their live commentary if it's a stream).

I would think it's for a jury to decide, I think a judge would allow a fair use defense, and a jury decide if the facts fit such a case.

My instinct would be that it violates fair use as it uses a substantial amount of the original (100%), can be used as a substitute for the original (to a point), the originalpermeates approaching 100% of the combined product, in the case of MST3k: it is a commercialized combining, and lastly, the original is a large percentage of the overall end product (80% of the screen a

I don't. US copyright laws may be stupid at times, but it's absurd to believe that his intentions included parody at the time. He's free to claim whatever he wants in court, but he bears the burden of proof when he claims fair use.

And if the chatter surrounding this event was "hey man, you can watch the UFC fight for free on the stream"... he's gonna lose so badly.

the courts will have been seeded with people for whom "fair use" means "pay us now or pay us later"

I'm not sure what you're implying here, but there is an established guideline for deciding whether something is fair use. It's not like someone i

"They have to catch everyone?"
No. It doesn't work when the cop pulls you over. Its not going to work now. Based on attitude...I hope they nail this guy to the wall. And he wants money for an interview? So hes trying to profit off his crime as well. Thats also illegal.